Poll: The Posting of Sensitive Material

For me ofcom needs to be destroyed it's that simple At this moment in time the so called government regulator seems to change there tune to regulation whenever they want to and there isn't a dam thing we can do about it. The coalition government if my memory serves me correct was thinking about either dismantling or deregulating Ofcom, clearly this hasn't happened yet! Whether it will or not will depend how desperate the government is for cash, and the way the global economy is, the chances of that happening seem a probable prospect
Apart from the channels being free to air, Ofcom are happy enough at the moment of allowing the babes to go naked after 11pm however the main issue is which amazes me is that ofcom class the woman's Vagina offensive yet, a mans penis and testicles can be shown?? Now apart from the obvious differences, why a woman's vagina can't get the same exposure is beyond me
So what do we do? Well that's the $64000 dollar question, ofcom won't be here for ever in a day, come in a yrs time will we still have our Babe channels well I personally think we will, and I do think something will change due to economic problems i.e government pulling in the purse strings even further, which means ofcom has less money which could mean less power!!
Besides that, do I think the babe channels could do more, dam straight they could do more, but there all shit scared well maybe apart from playboy which might be taking on ofcom, which would be great news for all of us. So let's all hope that 2012 will be a great year for the babe channels, because quite frankly 2011 is a year I want to for get.

(15-12-2011 22:15 )mrmann Wrote:  I agree with you ^, but knowing Ofcom, they could just decide to change how they operate, and could easily fine a channel after six weeks.

No they can't. Not without publishing the changes, and probably consulting on them too. And if they did, then we'd know why, which again allows the channels to seek a review of Ofcom's powers based on their obvious prejudice against them. Give them enough rope and they WILL hang themselves!

Have a look at Broadcast Bulletin 169 http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/enforce...ns/obb169/

Despite being dated 8/11/2010 they look at content on The Islam Channel on 18 May 2008, 12 April 2009 and 30 Oct 2009. This is in response to a report published by the Quilliam Foundation in March 2010. Now assuming Quilliam immediately lodged a complaint with Ofcom, or that it was referred to Ofcom at the time, rather than closer to when broadcast, thats 22 months - nearly 2 years - between broadcast and complaint (May 2008 - March 2010).

Nearly 2 years.

As far as I am aware, there is no statutory timescale restricting investigations, just Ofcoms own internal guidelines. These arent even in the Broadcasting Code, making it difficult for a channel to claim that official regulations have been flouted.

The "ordinary" 20 day limit means they can demand recordings and eliminates some newspaper campaigns where the Daily Mail (oops, named it) tells people who did not see a show what to think.

Ofcoms position is probably that outside 20 days it would not normally bother, but if there was a really serious allegation the severity would force its hand. Say the BBC quietly broadcast live hardcore sex during the Teletubbies for a 6 month period then stopped. Or a channel showed live executions. Or a Christian channel showed abortions (its happened).

What the Broadcasting Code does state is that channels must retain recordings for 60 days. And probably longer if someone complains to them. After 60 days they can wipe the recordings.

Ofcom dont normally treat recordings supplied by complainants as reliable. After all, by making a complaint they have compromised their impartiality. They could be fake. However in a serious enough case if the channel was unwilling or incapable of supplying a recording Ofcom might consider the case.

The channel would then have several options.
Claim abuse of process.
Claim the recordings are fake, or non broadcast material.
Say it was another channel. In another country.
Claim they can neither confirm or deny the allegation due to the passage of time.
Accept the veracity of the recording but claim it was not a breach.
Accept a slap.

What does this mean for babe channels?

After 60 days they can refuse to supply recordings. Thats 60 calendar days, not working days, say 2 months.

Channels can dispute the veracity of any time stamps on recordings. It cant be impossible to overlay the Sky information or channel id popup on a tape. It cant be impossible to add a channels logos to a webfeed.

Heres some other thoughts.

Channels might have more money coming in after the death of Bangbabes. But thats inevitable if you take out a big player. Even with less money overall, the few left in the game get more. Short term.

Current shows are incredibly tame. And dull. When there is a feeling that Ofcom can retrospectively make up a new rule, claim they are persistent offenders and fine them a 6 figure sum for something they did not even know was banned, channels will play safe.

Having an underground illegal set of broadcasts is unacceptable.

Its unacceptable because it places the channels at risk of arbitrary enforcement, whim, victimisation, malice, political grandstanding, even blackmail. Even an unofficial Ofcom policy of ignoring infrequent slips would not work for exactly those reasons. We have seen the spineless way Ofcom did a U turn over scantily clad - but covered - dancers on X Factor, first saying they were just within the limits of acceptabilty, then bringing out rules banning lingere, leggy dancers and mild raunch before 9pm. Or soon after. Or even later if kids might still be watching, say a continuation of the same show (X Factor, 8-10pm), a follow on (The Xtra Factor, 10-11pm), or an unrelated adult orientated show with a child friendly look and feel (South Park, its a cartoon).

No doubt there were plenty of gay civil servants, soldiers and BBC employees in the 1950s and 1960s whose bosses looked the other way, but making something illegal and then (sometimes) not enforcing the law wasnt acceptable then, so why should it be acceptable now?

Besides who would invest in a business that was technically illegal but operated by keeping off the official radar or with unofficial tolerance.

I am in full agreement with almost everyone on this forum in saying that Ofcom are a pain in the backside with their rules and regulations. But I have said this on more than one occasion. The Babechannels themselves are as much to blame. Why on earth would they want to have an uncensored free for all, when their main activity in making money lie's in the offshoots. 24 hours a day they have a running advert enticing punters to buy their goods. Goods that go a little further in sexual content than the normal free to air programmes. So why on earth would they want to jeopordise the money cow by giving everything for free. What I am saying is this, would anyone buy a photo for three pounds, if the same model had flashed her pussy all night for free. Would you pay money for the cam shows that they all seem to be doing now. Would anyone pay anything? no they would not. So would someone please tell me where would the channels make up this shortfall.

(16-12-2011 15:34 )RESPONSIBLE ADULT Wrote:  So would someone please tell me where would the channels make up this shortfall.

If they increased the explicitness of the shows and brought back on-screen text messages that were actually fulfilled , they'd probably make as much money from the increased calls and texts as they do now from their ppv shows and photo offers. More so, they could do away with all the sideline crap and save even more money.

Think the problem was bangbabes before im sure the channels thought oh if we get a fine then ok if we increase profits at the cost of a fine then was a cost worth payin. when ofcom effectivly shut bang babes down for constant rule breaking then the channels got scared who cna blame them costs a fortune and and a lot of time and effort to set channels up.

As i remmebr it the lib dems esp vince cable wanted to split up ofcom as it deals with a lot of different areas including tv Telecoms and internet that was before he was taped badmouthing Murdoch and the press went after him mind you this was before the phone hacking scandal where he was proved to be right